memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:USS Defiant (2370)
PNA to Featured Outside of the "appearances" section, episode references should be placed within the article along with each event or paragraph. --Gvsualan 20:10, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) :How's that? -- Rebelstrike2005 19:28, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) Exactly like how I said it. It needs episode references in the articles content. --Gvsualan 07:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) Featured article status? I think this article has the potential to be a featured article but I would appreciate any assistance or ideas to make it better. -- Rebelstrike2005 15:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) :First, the existing "PNA" listing should be resolved by further edits or discussion here. -- Cid Highwind 15:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::I believe the existing PNA notice has been resolved. Citations are now extremely well detailed. If there are no objections, I will remove the notice from the page. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 15:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC) Nominations for featured articles *USS Defiant (NX-74205) -- Self nomination. I've been working on the Defiant article for a while now and I think its got a lot of information in it. -- Rebel Strike 15:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC) **'Mild oppose' - needs wiki mark-up. --Defiant | ''Talk'' 22:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC) **Done... I now support this nomination. --Defiant | ''Talk'' 09:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC) **'Support'. AmdrBoltz 14:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC) **'Support'.--Scimitar 15:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC) Two Defiants under one heading Couldnt we combine the two pages under a heading like this USS Defiant(NX74205 / NCC75633) i know they are different ships, but under the same crew and same series of trek i think we could actually merge them. i know the 1701 and the 1701-a have seperate pages, but they were on different media one was tv one was movie and the tv ship lasted the whole run of the series. the 1701-a was a refit ship anyway wasnt it, making it actually a different ship class as well. these ships the prototype and the sao palo are the same ship of the line and fit under the same series, and the sao palo defiant was destroyed by the borg in a movie wasnt it? Its Time For The White! =/\=Talk=/\= 06:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC) :Since these articles are being written from an "in-universe" perspective, the type of media or series in which the ship appeared does not count in the writing of these articles. Also, the NX-class Defiant was such an integral part of the Trek universe that it certainly deserves its own page. --From Andoria with Love 06:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC) :: NX class Defiant? --Alan 16:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC) Second Defiant? Which episode are we told that this is the second not third defiant. It may be the second Defiant to be seen, but how do we know a Defiant was not commissioned in 2300 and decommissioned in 2350? Truth be told, we don't even know if one of the new Warp 7 ships could have been named Defiant. --TOSrules 07:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC) :Could you be more specific as to what you are talking about.– Tuvok of 9 00:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC) ::He's asking about if there were prior Starfleet vessels named Defiant. It's not unreasonable to assume that the name Defiant's been attached to at least 4 or 5 ships in federation history. (3 have been seen) (StarkeRealm 09:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)) : Well we already know there was another ship named Defiant, the it was first seen in , then in that why the article does say it was one of three, it instead says one of at least three. --Illwill 00:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Moved from article The first information seems to be contradicted by the second paragraph (which states 2371 instead). The other one needs to be cited. After that, both could be moved back to the article text, where appropriate. -- Cid Highwind 15:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Cloaking Device? I was just thinking it would be nice to have a pic of the Defiants cloaking-device? - (Awar 18:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)) :The device was never seen on screen. --Jörg 18:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Thats a real shame it would be cool to see a romulan cloaking device! ::*cough* picture of a Romulan cloaking device *cough* ::We have seen them. Just not this one. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Picture It seems to me that there could be a les distorted picture in the bigginging. the current one is a little too elongated. – 7th Tactical 01:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC) :Seems fine to me, and besides, it's an unedited screencap and thus is a valid picture. - Enzo Aquarius 01:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC) The Previous NCC #. The Enterprises (save for the very first one) retained its original registry number and added letters in the meantime. Why wasn't this Defiant numbered NCC-1764-A? -- 01:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC) :Actually, the Enterprise was unusual in this practice, as far as we can tell. Look at other ships here, like the Intrepid, the Potemkin, the Lexington, none of them just tacked letters on. It seems to have been something done out of honor for the accomplishments of the Enterprise, not as standard practice for the fleet. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC) :: Wouldn't it be numbered NX-74205-A? In any case, OuroborosCobra makes an excellent point, and I think that explains it pretty well from an in-universe perspective. In actuality, the 'real' reason they didn't name the ship Defiant-A was because they didn't have enough money to do a new model for . There's an FAQ about the 9-episode arc in Season 7 in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion, and one of the questions is why wasn't the ship called Defiant-A. That's the rather humdrum answer that's given. – Bertaut talk 23:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC) ::: Keep in mind that this follows real-world practices. For example the USS Enterprise CVN-65 isn't instead designated CV-6-A after the World War Two USS Enterprise. Technically I guess the second DS9 Defiant should be NX-74205-A (or probably better, NCC-74205) yet it isn't. It's very unfortunate that there wasn't the time or money to use all-new footage in 'What you leave behind', but still. Having said that, it would be awesome if they could get rid of the re-used footage for a special DS9 anniversery box set. --Darth Windu 09:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Crew Does it make zero sense to anyone else that the command crew of the Defiant and the crew of DS9 are one and the same. Who takes care of DS9 while Sisko and everyone else are out on adventures for who knows how long. In reality wouldn't the Defiant have had an all new crew? :Who takes care of the station when the main characters are asleep? Probably the same answer, an equivalent to the beta shift from TNG. In addition, we have seen times when other crew were put in charge, Michael Eddington was in the episode where he eventually defected all the way to the Maquis, IIRC. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)